1. According to the Associated Press, “China’s government on Friday rejected a U.S. antidumping ruling against its makers of solar power equipment and Chinese manufacturers warned possible higher tariffs might hurt efforts to promote clean energy.”
2. UPI reports: “Europe’s photovoltaic market continued to boom in 2011, with installed capacity doubling across the 27 EU member countries, new research indicates… Photovoltaic’s 2011 growth, at 21.5 gigawatts-peak, also handily beat the growth of other types of generating technologies. Some 9.3 gigawatts of new wind power came online in Europe last year, along with 2.2 gigawatts of coal-fired capacity.
3. National Public Radio is running a weeklong series on natural gas fracking, including the first segment, “With Gas Boom, Pennsylvania Fears New Toxic Legacy.”
4. CleanTechnica links to a map showing how offshore wind power alone could power the world.
5. At Grist, David Roberts asks “Why are U.S. taxpayers subsidizing coal mining?” Roberts argues that doing this “makes sense for no one other than the coal companies.”

Historically, PV technologies were widely associated with a range of technical challenges including the performance limitations of BOS components (e.g., batteries, mounting structures, and inverters), lack of scale in manufacturing, perceived inadequate supply of raw materials, as well as economic barriers – in particular high upfront capital costs. While the industry was in its infancy – as recently as five years ago global cumulative installation was about 16 GW – this characterisation had merit (EPIA, 2011a). Now, with rapid cost reductions, a changing electricity industry context with regard to energy security and climate change concerns, increasing costs for some generation alternatives and a growing appreciation of the appropriate comparative metrics, PV’s competitiveness is changing rapidly. As an example, large drops in solar module prices have helped spur record levels of deployment, which increased 54 percent over the previous year to 28.7 GW in 2011. This is ten times the new build level of 2007.

Unfortunately, BNEF notes that despite this great news for solar PV competitiveness, “awareness of the current economics of solar power lags among many commentators, policy makers, energy users and even utilities.” In fact, as BNEF points out, many people still believe “that PV is prohibitively expensive, and still has not reached ‘competitiveness’.” That’s why studies like this one, which conclude the exact opposite of that common yet erroneous public perception, are important. We strongly recommend you read it.

After interviewing fifty-five stakeholders, we found a number of barriers both common and unique to the states we examined. Fortunately, energy efficiency does have a foothold in every region of the country, and the policies and programs we recommend are grounded in past experience and success in states similar to those we examined for this report. The recommendations vary in scope and targeted sector, but we focused on low-cost, flexible solutions that made sense given the context of most states we analyzed. We conclude that low-ranking states in the Scorecard should seize the opportunity to tap into an abundant, yet under-utilized resource in energy efficiency, which can contribute to economic development, environmental well-being, and energy security.

In other words, there’s tremendous low-hanging fruit with energy efficiency in states that are currently wasteful and/or inefficient in their energy use patterns. What’s holding these states (Alabama, Kansas, Mississippi, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, West Virginia, Wyoming) back from taking advantage of this opportunity?  According to the ACEEE report, there are several main ones: 1) “a lack of awareness of energy efficiency and its numerous benefits in the public and private sectors;” 2) skepticism among utilities and their regulators regarding “how cost-beneficial energy efficiency programs would be for utilities and their customers;” and 3) an “overriding aversion to mandates and requirements also feeds the skepticism of policies advancing energy efficiency.”

How can these states move beyond the obstacles and take advantage of the tremendous opportunity afforded by energy efficiency gains? ACEEE lists a series of recommendations, including empowering customers with information, providing tax incentives to encourage energy efficiency, and adopting the latest national model building codes. To read the full study, click here (registration required).

Wouldn’t it be cool if we passed a rule mandating that all new federal buildings had to be carbon-neutral by 2030? The feds buy and build a lot of real estate. An effort to wring fossil-fuel energy out of those buildings — by increasing their efficiency and supplying them with renewables — would seriously bolster domestic markets for efficiency and distributed energy. Beyond that, it would serve as a proving ground and an example for the communities where those buildings are located. It would be galvanizing.

[...]

…We do have such a rule! It was passed by Congress and signed by President George W. Bush! It’s on the books, the law of the land. Specifically, it is Section 433 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. It says that new federal buildings, or major renovations ($2.5 million or more) of federal buildings, must reduce their consumption of fossil-fuel energy (relative to a similar building in 2003) 55 percent by 2010, 80 percent by 2020, and 100 percent by 2030…

Sounds like a win-win, in which taxpayers – that’s you and me – save money, while also cutting pollution and enhancing the health and productivity of workers in those buildings. Who would possibly be against such a law? One guess.

On April 12, representatives from the American Gas Association (AGA) and the Federal Performance Contracting Coalition(FPCC) met at the White House with administration officials from DOE, CEQ, and OMB. At that meeting they offered this issue brief[PDF], which called on Congress to “substantially modify or eliminate EISA section 433.” You can bet that issue brief hit all the relevant congressional offices as well.

Less than a month later, Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-La.) of the House Appropriations Committee offered an amendment to the Fiscal Year 2013 Energy and Water Appropriations Bill that would “prohibit funding” to implement Section 433.

What is motivating this stealth attack on one of the few genuinely ambitious energy laws in the U.S.?

For the AGA, it’s pretty simple: no fossil fuel means no natural gas.

In other words, the fossil fuel industry once again is using its financial muscle and political power to keep their gravy train going as long as possible, even if it holds back our country. There’s certainly nothing “awesome” about that.

1. Renewable Energy World highlights “Five Shining Examples of Renewable Energy Innovation and Investment.” Among them: reduced costs for concentrated solar power, an Atlantic wind underwater transmission line, and a “real replacement for coal.”
2. Greentechsolar looks at “Thin Film Manufacturing Prospects in the Sub-Dollar-Per-Watt Market,” asking “What happened to the promise of thin-film PV?”
3. The Center for American Progress has a new report on “America’s Future Under ‘Drill, Baby, Drill.’” The nightmare scenario? “ Instead of choosing to invest in clean and efficient energy solutions post-2012, giving consumers and businesses a choice in what kind of electricity and fuel to produce and use, we committed ourselves to a carbon-intensive, extractive economic future. We kept drilling and burning, and we kept spewing noxious CO2, smog, and other pollutants into the air at exponential rates.”
4. According to CleanTechnica, “the wind energy industry is supporting federal guidelines that hold it to a higher standard than any other industry in the nation when it comes to wildlife protection.”
5. Grist reports: The brewmeister of Brooklyn Brewery says toxic fracking chemicals like methanol, benzene, and ethylene glycol (found in antifreeze) could contaminate his beer by leaking into New York’s water supply.

Today my wife and I have 28 employees and four offices in four states at Anemometry Specialists. We work in the wind industry on turbines. We are proud to be among those who help make Iowa the No. 1 state in the country for wind jobs. Iowa also ranks second in electricity generation from wind.

[...]

And we were able to keep jobs in Iowa. The majority of the people I employ here in Alta are either farm kids or still working on the family farm in the evening. Today, the school district in Alta receives somewhere between 16 percent and 20 percent of its revenue from wind turbines. And almost 30 percent of the taxes paid into the county are off wind turbines.

Wind is an American success story in Iowa.

Hach adds that he’s “not reaping massive profits like the oil billionaires funding these ads with their billions in subsidies and tax breaks,” but is “living invoice to invoice, praying we have enough money to make payroll every two weeks,” participating in an industry which “supports the American farmer and is good for our national security because we still are too dependent on Middle East dictators for our energy needs.” The fact is, this “American success story” can happen in any state, not just Iowa, with smart policies at the state and federal level.  As long as we all listen to people like Rob Hach, not the “oil billionaires.”

…the first thing to note is that Professor Sadoway’s grid-scale batteries were designed so cleverly! From the ground up, the goal was to make them dirt-cheap (literally!) and very safe and reliable, which is why they can operate comfortably at high temperatures (something that needs to be constantly cooled has more chances of failing if something unexpected happens). He didn’t just try to stretch an existing design into something bigger, he created them to be grid-scale from the ground up. It’s truly the kind of genius work that should be backed by massive resources, either from venture capitalists or the Department of Energy or whatever. The faster we can bring these to market, the faster we can ramp up intermittent renewable sources of energy way past the point at which they would start to screw up our current grid infrastructure. And we need all the carbon-free energy we can get, especially with China and India rapidly ramping up their coal usage.

One other reason I think this article is worth highlighting is that Donald Sadoway is a serious scientist: an MIT professor of materials chemistry, one of Time Magazine’s “100 Most Influential People in the World,” etc. So perhaps this time, a touted “breakthrough” will really be a breakthrough? Let’s hope!

1. A study by Bloomberg New Energy Finance finds that “Power generated from solar photovoltaic (PV) panels is much closer to competitiveness with conventional electricity generation than many policy-makers and commentators have realized,” and that “The shift in prices of solar technology carries major implications for policy and investment decision-makers, especially when it comes to the choice of generating technology and the design of tariff, fiscal and other support policies.”
2. DeSmogBlog reports: “FreedomWorks, the sister organization to theKoch-funded Americans for Prosperity (AFP), has launched a new website and advertising campaign to convince American voters that the Obama administration and the EPA are out to destroy American jobs.”
3. According to the Wall Street Journal’s Market Watch, First Solar and SunPower are looking to benefit from Saudi Arabia’s $109 billion solar plan, which aims “to have 41,000 megawatts of solar capacity by 2032.”
4. Renewable Energy World reports, “Seven months after a trade investigation was launched, American solar companies and Chinese solar manufacturers will finally get a clear picture of the challenges ahead…A determination on the second of the two tariffs is set to be made on May 16 and announced on May 17.”
5. Iowa Governor Terry Branstad writes in the Wall Street Journal, “Our state is receiving 20% of its electricity from wind farms at stable and dependable rates, and there are over 215 wind-related businesses operating in 55 counties across Iowa, providing jobs for more than 5,000 workers. This success has been replicated across the nation, with more than 470 factories in 43 states producing parts for the industry.”

First, the study found that “only 13 percent [of Americans] trust oil, gas and coal companies (e.g., ExxonMobil and Peabody Energy) as sources of information about global warming.” In stark contrast, 74% of Americans trust climate scientists, 47% trust President Obama, and 43% trust the mainstream news media. Overall, the fossil fuel companies came in dead last, behind car companies and consumer goods companies, in terms of who Americans trust regarding information on global warming.

Second, the level of distrust for the fossil fuel companies, at least on this subject, is intense. In fact, despite an aggressive, well-funded campaign by companies like ExxonMobil to sow doubt about climate science, the new Yale survey finds that an astounding 87 percent of Americans distrust the fossil fuel companies for information on global warming, and that a near-majority (48%) of Americans strongly distrust the fossil fuel companies.

The bottom line: despite many millions of dollars spent by the fossil fuel companies to spread disinformation, including funding of science denial groups like the Heartland Institute, on climate science, the American people simply do not trust them for information on this subject. Perhaps the fossil fuel companies might have better spent their money on promoting wind, solar, and other clean energy sources instead?

1. Energy Boom reports, “Twenty of the world’s leading off-grid clean energy entrepreneurs sent a letter [yesterday] to World Bank Group president Robert Zoellick requesting $500 million in financial commitments to help them deliver on the world’s energy access goals.”
2. According to CleanTechnica: “Yet another recent poll showed that Americans really support clean energy, across political affiliations… 76% of Americans (58% of Republicans, 83% of Independents, and 88% of Democrats) want to see ”a reduction in our reliance on nuclear power, natural gas and coal, and instead, launch a national initiative to boost renewable energy and energy efficiency.”
3. The New York Times reports, “A pioneering proposal to build a wind power transmission line on the ocean floor from southern Virginia to northern New Jersey cleared a hurdle on Monday when the Interior Department opened the way for the project’s sponsors to start work on an environmental impact statement.”
4. Eric Wesoff of Greentechsolar explains the “anatomy of the SolarWorld US-China Solar Trade Case.”
5. The Boston Globe reports: “Retail giant Walmart said it plans to install solar panels on top of about half of its roughly 50 Massachusetts stores as early as August as part of an expansion of solar power in the state… once the projects are done, they will be capable of generating a total of about 10.5 megawatts worth of energy, enough to power up to 2,600 homes.”